Prophylactic Cefazolin Dosing and Surgical Site Infections: Does the Dose Matter in Obese Patients?
Adult
Aged
Anti-Bacterial Agents
/ administration & dosage
Antibiotic Prophylaxis
/ methods
Body Mass Index
Case-Control Studies
Cefazolin
/ administration & dosage
Dose-Response Relationship, Drug
Elective Surgical Procedures
/ adverse effects
Female
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Obesity
/ drug therapy
Obesity, Morbid
/ drug therapy
Retrospective Studies
Surgical Wound Infection
/ epidemiology
Antibiotic prophylaxis
Cefazolin
Elective surgery
Obese
Surgical site infection
Journal
Obesity surgery
ISSN: 1708-0428
Titre abrégé: Obes Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9106714
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 2019
01 2019
Historique:
pubmed:
30
9
2018
medline:
31
12
2019
entrez:
30
9
2018
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Most surgical prophylaxis guidelines recommend a 3-g cefazolin intravenous dose in patients weighing ≥ 120 kg. However, this recommendation is primarily based on pharmacokinetic studies rather than robust clinical evidence. This study aimed to compare the prevalence of surgical site infections (SSIs) in obese and non-obese patients (body mass index ≥ 30 kg/m A retrospective case-control study was conducted in adult elective surgical patients. Patients receiving 2- g cefazolin were grouped as obese and non-obese, and by weight (≥ 120 kg or < 120 kg). The 90-day prevalence of SSI and potential contributing factors were investigated. We identified 152 obese (median 134 kg) and 152 non-obese control (median 73 kg) patients. Baseline characteristics were similar between groups, except for an increased prevalence in the obese group of diabetes (35.5% vs 13.2%; p < 0.001) and an American Society of Anaesthesiologists Score of 3 (61.8% vs 17.1%; p < 0.001). While not statistically significant, the prevalence of SSI in the obese group was almost double that in the non-obese group (8.6% vs 4.6%; p = 0.25) and in patients weighing ≥ 120 kg (n = 102) compared to those weighing < 120 kg (n = 202) (9.8% vs 5.0%; p = 0.17). The prevalence of SSI was not significantly increased in obese patients, or those weighing ≥ 120 kg, who received cefazolin 2- g prophylactically; however, trends toward an increase were evident. Large-scale randomised trials are needed to examine whether a 2-g or 3-g cefazolin is adequate to prevent SSI in obese (and ≥ 120 kg) individuals.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Most surgical prophylaxis guidelines recommend a 3-g cefazolin intravenous dose in patients weighing ≥ 120 kg. However, this recommendation is primarily based on pharmacokinetic studies rather than robust clinical evidence. This study aimed to compare the prevalence of surgical site infections (SSIs) in obese and non-obese patients (body mass index ≥ 30 kg/m
METHODS
A retrospective case-control study was conducted in adult elective surgical patients. Patients receiving 2- g cefazolin were grouped as obese and non-obese, and by weight (≥ 120 kg or < 120 kg). The 90-day prevalence of SSI and potential contributing factors were investigated.
RESULTS
We identified 152 obese (median 134 kg) and 152 non-obese control (median 73 kg) patients. Baseline characteristics were similar between groups, except for an increased prevalence in the obese group of diabetes (35.5% vs 13.2%; p < 0.001) and an American Society of Anaesthesiologists Score of 3 (61.8% vs 17.1%; p < 0.001). While not statistically significant, the prevalence of SSI in the obese group was almost double that in the non-obese group (8.6% vs 4.6%; p = 0.25) and in patients weighing ≥ 120 kg (n = 102) compared to those weighing < 120 kg (n = 202) (9.8% vs 5.0%; p = 0.17).
CONCLUSION
The prevalence of SSI was not significantly increased in obese patients, or those weighing ≥ 120 kg, who received cefazolin 2- g prophylactically; however, trends toward an increase were evident. Large-scale randomised trials are needed to examine whether a 2-g or 3-g cefazolin is adequate to prevent SSI in obese (and ≥ 120 kg) individuals.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30267229
doi: 10.1007/s11695-018-3497-0
pii: 10.1007/s11695-018-3497-0
pmc: PMC6320352
doi:
Substances chimiques
Anti-Bacterial Agents
0
Cefazolin
IHS69L0Y4T
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
159-165Références
Hippokratia. 2007 Jan;11(1):13-21
pubmed: 19582171
J Hosp Infect. 2017 May;96(1):1-15
pubmed: 28410761
Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2006 Oct;32(4):402-7
pubmed: 16716610
Surg Infect (Larchmt). 2017 May/Jun;18(4):485-490
pubmed: 27906601
Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2011 Oct;67(10):985-92
pubmed: 21499760
Surg Infect (Larchmt). 2013 Feb;14(1):73-156
pubmed: 23461695
Obstet Gynecol. 2015 May;125(5):1205-10
pubmed: 25932849
Anaesthesia. 2015 Jul;70(7):859-76
pubmed: 25950621
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2015 Nov;21(11):1008.e1-8
pubmed: 26197212
Obstet Gynecol. 2011 Jun;117(6):1472-83
pubmed: 21606770
Surg Infect (Larchmt). 2012 Feb;13(1):33-7
pubmed: 22316145
Surgery. 2004 Oct;136(4):738-47
pubmed: 15467657
J Antimicrob Chemother. 2014 Mar;69(3):715-23
pubmed: 24214905
PLoS One. 2013 Dec 18;8(12):e83743
pubmed: 24367612
Obes Surg. 2017 Mar;27(3):626-629
pubmed: 27520693
Surg Infect (Larchmt). 2014 Aug;15(4):412-6
pubmed: 24824510
Surg Infect (Larchmt). 2013 Oct;14(5):455-9
pubmed: 23859672
Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2016 Apr;47(4):259-68
pubmed: 26988339
Obstet Gynecol. 2011 Apr;117(4):877-82
pubmed: 21422859
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015 Sep;213(3):415.e1-8
pubmed: 26003059
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015 Oct;213(4):541.e1-7
pubmed: 26103528
JAMA Surg. 2017 Aug 1;152(8):784-791
pubmed: 28467526